I have to believe that it's easier being the heir than being the king. I don't know what the monarch's responsibilities are these days other than attending events and waving to the subjects, but the heir's responsibilities must be far less.

Heard that before and wondered about it. Does the queen get to choose her successor from a list of acceptable options? What happens if she drops dead one day, I assume she would list her preference in the will, but does that mean it would be followed?

Slives:The Stealth Hippopotamus: He's not going to get to be king. I'm sure he knows that.

Heard that before and wondered about it. Does the queen get to choose her successor from a list of acceptable options? What happens if she drops dead one day, I assume she would list her preference in the will, but does that mean it would be followed?

No. The tabloids have been rooting for Charles being skipped in favor of William, which would require Charles playing along, no matter how you cut it. And he wouldn't, and his mother wouldn't want him to. There's a defined order of succession, and skipping a generation wouldn't be it.

Incidentally, they just changed it for future cases (doesn't alter the current line), so that it's gender neutral- whatever gender the royal fetus winds up being, it'll be the monarch of England in about 50 years.

cptjeff:No. The tabloids have been rooting for Charles being skipped in favor of William, which would require Charles playing along, no matter how you cut it. And he wouldn't, and his mother wouldn't want him to. There's a defined order of succession, and skipping a generation wouldn't be it.

While I agree it probably won't happen, our extended lifespans, especially for the wealthy, is creating a situation where we might end up with only geriatric monarchs. The Pope's resignation, whatever the real reason, has set a precedence in this area for there to be a discussion about the appropriateness of service till death in the modern age. This goes not just for Popes and monarchs but also for political offices like the US Supreme Court (some countries like Canada already impose an age limit). Institutional knowledge is a great benefit but everyone eventually reaches mental decline. Perhaps it's time we deal with that instead of ignoring it.

EngineerAU:While I agree it probably won't happen, our extended lifespans, especially for the wealthy, is creating a situation where we might end up with only geriatric monarchs. The Pope's resignation, whatever the real reason, has set a precedence in this area for there to be a discussion about the appropriateness of service till death in the modern age. This goes not just for Popes and monarchs but also for political offices like the US Supreme Court (some countries like Canada already impose an age limit). Institutional knowledge is a great benefit but everyone eventually reaches mental decline. Perhaps it's time we deal with that instead of ignoring it.

Nah, I look forward to living in a world run by 150 year old crazy bastards.

The media LOVES them. The people who benefit from the media love for them, love them. But ask what the common person in Britian - the ones that scrub toilets, dig ditches, work in factories, ride their bikes to work, and pay taxes, think of the royals.

These are a long line of priveledged people that have been stealing money from their subjects for 100's of years. And being wonderful celebrities in the meantime. They are not as loved and revered as many people think.

Oh I don't know. He's only 64 now and given the stock he comes from (his father is still alive and well at 91) he may well live long enough to become king. He may be 80 when it happens, but I wouldn't be surprised if he outlives his mother.

Slives:The Stealth Hippopotamus: He's not going to get to be king. I'm sure he knows that.

Heard that before and wondered about it. Does the queen get to choose her successor from a list of acceptable options? What happens if she drops dead one day, I assume she would list her preference in the will, but does that mean it would be followed?

There's no preference or options; the succession is very nearly set in stone. Changing those rules has been done before, but it ain't easy.

Charles may die before he becomes monarch, or he may ascend the throne and immediately say "Eff it, I'm now 140 years old, I'm done," and then the eldest living prince takes over, or etc etc. But they don't get to pick and choose while the throne is vacant.

cgraves67:I have to believe that it's easier being the heir than being the king. I don't know what the monarch's responsibilities are these days other than attending events and waving to the subjects, but the heir's responsibilities must be far less.

cgraves67:I have to believe that it's easier being the heir than being the king. I don't know what the monarch's responsibilities are these days other than attending events and waving to the subjects, but the heir's responsibilities must be far less.

Well, the Queen stays fully appraised of the operations of her government, even the covert ones, has a completely private and off the record conversation with the PM weekly, and takes care of all the highest level state and ceremonial occasions, though many of those involve a fair chunk of the royal family too. Lower level stuff gets farmed out to the rest of the royals, which allows serious national heavyweights to reach a range of events and occasions that would be just about impossible in a place like the US where the the Head of State role is only secondary to a much more demanding Head of Government role. Being able to focus on those things full time and having more people to draw on to do them means they get to a lot of shop openings, weddings, and really small scale stuff, which has a huge effect on building a unified nation. (As opposed to State).

But yeah- Prince Charles's job isn't that different from his Mother's at this point, except that she has a lot more mandatory ceremonial jobs that require a lot of coordination and planning, and she's responsible for being the institutional memory for the UK and providing candid advice to the PM with an in depth knowledge of the activities of the British Government going back to Winston Churchill.

She's also the one who handles the state occasions that are a little more sensitive diplomatically- she was the one behind that State visit to Ireland recently and the subsequent reconciliation with the guy who was the head of the IRA at one point.

Slives:The Stealth Hippopotamus: He's not going to get to be king. I'm sure he knows that.

Heard that before and wondered about it. Does the queen get to choose her successor from a list of acceptable options? What happens if she drops dead one day, I assume she would list her preference in the will, but does that mean it would be followed?

No, the succession is determined by Act of Parliament. Charles will automatically become king the instant she dies. If he dies first, William becomes king on her death.

cptjeff:cgraves67: I have to believe that it's easier being the heir than being the king. I don't know what the monarch's responsibilities are these days other than attending events and waving to the subjects, but the heir's responsibilities must be far less.

Well, the Queen stays fully appraised of the operations of her government, even the covert ones, has a completely private and off the record conversation with the PM weekly, and takes care of all the highest level state and ceremonial occasions, though many of those involve a fair chunk of the royal family too. Lower level stuff gets farmed out to the rest of the royals, which allows serious national heavyweights to reach a range of events and occasions that would be just about impossible in a place like the US where the the Head of State role is only secondary to a much more demanding Head of Government role. Being able to focus on those things full time and having more people to draw on to do them means they get to a lot of shop openings, weddings, and really small scale stuff, which has a huge effect on building a unified nation. (As opposed to State).

But yeah- Prince Charles's job isn't that different from his Mother's at this point, except that she has a lot more mandatory ceremonial jobs that require a lot of coordination and planning, and she's responsible for being the institutional memory for the UK and providing candid advice to the PM with an in depth knowledge of the activities of the British Government going back to Winston Churchill.

She's also the one who handles the state occasions that are a little more sensitive diplomatically- she was the one behind that State visit to Ireland recently and the subsequent reconciliation with the guy who was the head of the IRA at one point.

The media LOVES them. The people who benefit from the media love for them, love them. But ask what the common person in Britian - the ones that scrub toilets, dig ditches, work in factories, ride their bikes to work, and pay taxes, think of the royals.

These are a long line of priveledged people that have been stealing money from their subjects for 100's of years. And being wonderful celebrities in the meantime. They are not as loved and revered as many people think.

They can all go smoke a turd for all I care.

They have been paying their own way for hundreds of years. They provide 160 million pounds of revenue to the United Kingdom every year. You can thank George III for that..

I love to analyze institutions and political structures. Separating the Head of State and Head of Government roles has some interesting advantages, and England is a nice example, and they're also the best example around of how to make an existing monarchy work in a Democratic system.

I have somewhat dorky interests, true, but I do enjoy the pomp and ceremony that everybody else pays attention to too.

From my observations of the Royals and the British attitude towards the monarchy, if QE2 were to croak, Chuck would be pressured to abdicate the succession and let William ascend to the throne. Let's face it: Chuck is a nice guy and a genuinely smart fellow. But he's a living reminder of the out-of-touch, stodgy manner of the Windsors. Britain is weary of the Royals being perpetually stuck in 1953. If William was made king, his swag and his hot wife would go a long way in re-invigorating the decrepit Windsor monarchy.

The media LOVES them. The people who benefit from the media love for them, love them. But ask what the common person in Britian - the ones that scrub toilets, dig ditches, work in factories, ride their bikes to work, and pay taxes, think of the royals.

These are a long line of priveledged people that have been stealing money from their subjects for 100's of years. And being wonderful celebrities in the meantime. They are not as loved and revered as many people think.

They can all go smoke a turd for all I care.

Well the tens of billions in taxes from the royal estates really helps for one. Not bad for a stipend a fraction of the size. Then there is the tourism money they pump into the economy tooo. Of course I am sure the toilet cleaners are also paying 99% tax and keeping a healthy dose of the country from bankruptcy too.

ukexpat:Slives: The Stealth Hippopotamus: He's not going to get to be king. I'm sure he knows that.

Heard that before and wondered about it. Does the queen get to choose her successor from a list of acceptable options? What happens if she drops dead one day, I assume she would list her preference in the will, but does that mean it would be followed?

No, the succession is determined by Act of Parliament. Charles will automatically become king the instant she dies. If he dies first, William becomes king on her death.

Hence, Terry Prachett's theory about how the fastest form of information in the world is not "bits encoded in pulses of light," but rather, "the kingship". As soon as a king dies, the prince because king with no measurable delay at all. Thus some Discworld nations have experimented with sending instantaneous messages by briefly torturing captive kings.

I love to analyze institutions and political structures. Separating the Head of State and Head of Government roles has some interesting advantages, and England is a nice example, and they're also the best example around of how to make an existing monarchy work in a Democratic system.

I have somewhat dorky interests, true, but I do enjoy the pomp and ceremony that everybody else pays attention to too.

One of the more interesting parts of a recent bit of ducomentory fluff was the story of how a recent PM went to his audience with Liz expecting a twenty minute conversation on the weather and who might win the next horse race. He was grilled over tiny details of the government for almost an hour. The next time he went to see the Queen he prepaired harder than he did for PM Questions in the House of Commons.